<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 5 2003, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 5 2003, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why does Socialism/Communism appeal to me, a youth?
It's because it creates a state in which very few people suffer. Yes, it might truncate some free will but it creates a safe state. My examples would be more "socialistic" countries like Finland, Sweden and other such countries. Ok, so it has a high-tax rate but then you don't have to shell out money for insurance and such.
Of course, that is to say that is not my 100% ideal government. I would prefer a Socialist Republic, because it would allow for something similar to communism/socialism type governments while also taking into effect the base of human nature. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Someday you'll learn that other people don't care about you, so you will never ever care about them <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Until then, have fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 5 2003, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 5 2003, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why does Socialism/Communism appeal to me, a youth?
It's because it creates a state in which very few people suffer. Yes, it might truncate some free will but it creates a safe state. My examples would be more "socialistic" countries like Finland, Sweden and other such countries. Ok, so it has a high-tax rate but then you don't have to shell out money for insurance and such.
Of course, that is to say that is not my 100% ideal government. I would prefer a Socialist Republic, because it would allow for something similar to communism/socialism type governments while also taking into effect the base of human nature. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Someday you'll learn that other people don't care about you, so you will never ever care about them <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Until then, have fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i got my numbers from the soviet records that have been opened.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you're going to trust *THAT*?! Ahahahaahah.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eventually they start making websites about how american news if full of nothing but lies and propoganda to fill your brain with flag-waving happy days. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To an extent, yes, but this is why I hate talking about this to people: They don't have any idea about what the term 'relative' means.
All news is going to have a bias. It's a fact. It's written by humans. Bias is just part of our nature. We have a preference for our own race over others. We have a preference for our own species over others. We have a preference for our own views over others. It's a fact. The only non-biased news you'll get is if it was documented by robots who intervied EVERY party involved, every single person, and complied them down. That will not happen.
American news has a bias? Sure. But it's NOT full of propoganda telling us that America is the true guide in the world. That specific role is saved for two people: George Bush and Donald Rumsfield. In fact, show me a single news program that says that. News reports on facts, not opinions. You'll never hear an anchor saying 'Well I think 'blah blah' about this issue, Tom'. Never. And if you have, chances are they weren't on next week, or ever again.
Reported in the news: Iraqis down a chinook with stingers, killing 15 soldiers. If it was full of propoganda, why on EARTH would they be telling us that? It's our wonderfully non-elected leader telling us that crap.
Learn to seperate politics from news. JUst because Dubaya appeared on ABC news doesn't mean jack.
I believe that youth are attracted to more extreme elements of society because they don't have the same social bonds that older people do. I say more extreme elements because it's not just socialism that they're attracted to.
High school and college students don't have the same responsibilities. They don't have permanent jobs, children, or bills. Many are supported by their parents. The lack of ties to the community is what makes ideas and positions farther from the mainstream more attractive. College students don't backpack around Europe after they get a 9-5 and a mortgage and a dog and their 2.3 kids and car payments.
It can also be attributed to knowledge. When you're 15, 16, 17, you know everything. It's not that you think you know, you <i>do.</i> Then you hit the real world and it slowly dawns on you that you know nothing. The world isn't a simple place and there's a wealth of knowledge that you don't have. Things like economics, political and social philosophy and writing. Things get complex and simple ideas like <i>OMG! Teh guvmint suxxorz!</i> don't cut it anymore.
The concept of socialism appeals to youth because they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. They don't have money or a house or car payments. They don't have a stake in the current system. Then those ideals fade when they realize that they can either hold on to their ideals or they can be successful. The vast majority of any counter-culture comes from mainstream middle-class society and the members of that counter-culture have no problems melding right back into middle-class society when the counter-culture falls apart or they get to be 25-27.
I'd have to attack the question - why is anyone attracted to socialism? Because they decide on a political system they think would best run their state.
By limiting it to "youth" you're simply implying that Socialism is a fad that you grow out of. Or a system only chosen by the immature. Which is ludicrous. You might as well ask why only the shallow are attracted to pure Capitalism, its a pejorative question in that context.
I see we haven't got past one of my favoutrite sayings in my absence: Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Nov 5 2003, 07:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Nov 5 2003, 07:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Misconception about European Socialist Parties: Socialism has (in Europe, at least) a broad definition. All (democratic) socialist parties are in favour of artificially adjusting the wealth of their citizens. This means progressive tax rates ( the more you make, the more you pay over marginally more income). This means a wellfare state, giving subsidies to people without jobs etcetera. It does not mean, however, that they want everyone to be exactly equal in wealth. They strife to give everyone the same chances in life, and therefor sponsor education. These parties are not undemocratic (not even in favour of a different democratic order), and do not want to limit civil rights.
totally offtopic, however. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think thats OT at all.
The British Labour Party (before Tony 'Tory' Blair introduced the mysterious "Third Way" that was basically conservatism with a new name) always supported these ideals, and this was the sort of socialism I was talking about when I made my post - it would appear thought that across the pond socialism and communism are almost interchangeable words.
I would support the Labour Party, if they weren't poo <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->, I would go on but I don't want to drag this topic towards British politcal discussions.
As for all this pro-Communist stuff being thrown around - its like reading <i>Animal Farm</i> all over again.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Nov 4 2003, 11:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Nov 4 2003, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 5 2003, 03:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 5 2003, 03:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> holy rewriting of history batman. the USSR, despite being run by bureaucrats who contradicted Marxism with their actions, became an industrial superpower with 0% unemployment; eradicated illiteracy and put such a lid on crime that even under Stalin, the nation had an incarceration rate <i>lower than that of the USA today</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Killing 100 Million people tends to thin the 'bad crowd' and keep those left in line. :-/ Thats OT. This thread isn't about "Is socialism good?" Its "Why does youth continue to cling to it?"
And Anti-Bomb, thanks for your COMPLETELY WORTHLESS PERSONAL ATTACK OF A POST. Did you read ANYTHING on the site? I explain clearly why I have it. Also, I don't hate the band, I DISAGREE with them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Explain your page for song dissection, you are attacking them because of their lyrics.
You should really consider the fact that,
It's a damn song not an essay, speech, or an article.
You take things way too seriously, lighten up.
On another note, if that youth researched about it, read the manifesto, and agrees with it because they believe in it then I see no problem. I never knew Anti-Flag was socialist, based on their lyrics they just have humanitarian beliefs.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 4 2003, 11:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 4 2003, 11:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't usually hear "Down with the government! Vote for Bush!"
It is usually the modern communists who hate our government the most.
<b>Teenage Communist Logic:</b> <i> corporations are evil
coroporations' money influences government power
government power is evil</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You clearly have 'Teenage Communism' (whatever the hell that means) confused with anarchy.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 5 2003, 10:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 5 2003, 10:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By limiting it to "youth" you're simply implying that Socialism is a fad that you grow out of. Or a system only chosen by the immature. Which is ludicrous. You might as well ask why only the shallow are attracted to pure Capitalism, its a pejorative question in that context. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is sort of faddish in America though, which is where Jammer gets his thought (apologies to euros if this was not common knowledge). The biggest single time when socialism and anti-capitalism was popular in the USA was in the 1960's. Those people that founded the hippy movements and such are also the <i>exact same</i> group of people that created the Yuppie - the money-grubbing, get-yours-before-someone-else- does, rather personally irritating capitalist rodents of the 80's and early 90's.
Political loyalties (and this is my opinion based on my 30 years of observation, and not necessarily scientific) go hand in hand with the aging process. To be youthful is to (rather naturally) be very idyllic and naive. It is to want the best for everyone, and think that there is some magic bullet that will make the world a better place. As you grow older you find that the world isn't a utopia and probably would be hard-pressed to become one, and you become a bit more realistic (some might say pessimistic) about how life works, and you start gravitating more towards a reasonable status quo. As you get very old (and you can probably verify this with old people you know), you tend to get even more conservative and less able to believe in utopian dreams - you've seen 70 years of reality and you're pretty sure such things are nonsense.
This does not apply to everyone (although you are not as unique as you think you are, whoever you are reading this - stop being such a narcissist, it's the first step to adulthood) - but it is a good rule of thumb. And I think it answers Jammer's question: the youth like radical systems because they have not yet learned that they do not work very well. And being humans, more often than not they simply get bored of that radical behavior before they even figure out that it won't work. Plenty of history to support this, but let's just call it my opinion.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Sizer+Nov 5 2003, 05:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Nov 5 2003, 05:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're pretty hard to follow since you're bumbling back and forth on different issues, and with this me-tooer sidekick of yours stroking your private <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> are you calling me his me-tooer sidekick?
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 5 2003, 05:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 5 2003, 05:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and Zig i'm sorry if i misinterpreted what you wrote, but u should have written more, i bet i'm not the only one who wasn't clear on it. whatever im sorry if i got u angry man. peace. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> my point was... kids don't have to make money.
thus, they can exist peacefully in a world without that necessity...
I'd say that when you are young, your ideas and opinions are forming. You go from a "me-centric" world to one where you interact and empathize with other people. Ideas like "well we should all take care of each other" are a natural extension of that evolution of self.
It is very easy to formulate views without consideration of the impact on society or even yourself. The more extreme the view, the more unrealistic its implementation.
And why do us old folks start to sway back? Well, our views get tempered by experience and reality. We don't necessarily shift from one side to the other, but our views become less extreme and more geared towards something that is within the realm of possibility.
Not sure where I first saw it, but I read something that went a bit like this....
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and her father was a rather staunch Republican.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to programs like welfare. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless because of all the studying.
She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of all her studying.
He then asked how her friend Mary, who was attending the same college, was doing.
She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, was very popular on campus, and was at parties all the time. She often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
He then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
The daughter fired back and said, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and my friend has done nothing."
The father smiled and said: "Welcome to the Republican Party".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, I like that, especially as a college student. Its not flawless in its analogy, but it works.
Anti-bomb: there is a difference between "Disagree" and "Attack". Attacks are personal agendas motivated by differences in opinion. Disagreements are purely issues. You're attacking me for an opinion. Good Job.
Back on topic... I find it very interesting that arguably the most self-indulged group of America, youth, are in favor of a system which demands focus on others. Heh.
Its also hilarious that so many punk rock bands, a movment founded on being an individual and non-conformity, support a system in which the indivdual is a threat to the state. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Nov 5 2003, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Nov 5 2003, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 4 2003, 11:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 4 2003, 11:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't usually hear "Down with the government! Vote for Bush!"
It is usually the modern communists who hate our government the most.
<b>Teenage Communist Logic:</b> <i> corporations are evil
coroporations' money influences government power
government power is evil</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You clearly have 'Teenage Communism' (whatever the hell that means) confused with anarchy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, teenagers confuse communism with anarchy. By the time they do get it right they are so full of love for something so anti-social to common perception that they will believe any bull crap that they are told by bad punk bands.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Nov 5 2003, 06:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Nov 5 2003, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anti-bomb: there is a difference between "Disagree" and "Attack". Attacks are personal agendas motivated by differences in opinion. Disagreements are purely issues. You're attacking me for an opinion. Good Job.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not attacking you for having an opinion I just find it stupid to dedicate a whole entire website to criticizing a band. You want a blog? Fine, but to create it for the sole reason of criticizing a band's beliefs is foolish. I agree with freedom and speech and all and I respect your opinion but it is based on something very loose. Anti-Flag even says on it's gossip section that alot of the songs you shouldn't take seriously. That's the truth a lot of those lyrics that demonstrate their political beliefs are written to fit the chords and rifs of the music.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 5 2003, 12:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 5 2003, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> uranium, if you don't try to care about other people then what motivation do they have to care about you?
Not to mention, it would be Big Brother caring. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever hear the term 'Dog-eat-dog world'?
Let's say you're running a hot dog plant. You sell plain old hot dogs. Mustard, ketchup, bread, and a dog.
I open a chicago-style hot dog plant across the street. Relish, tomatos, cucumbers, garlic salt, all that good stuff.
<b>In capitalism</b>... people would rather buy my hot dogs, and I run you out of business. Good riddance, I think, you were just a risk that I'd lose money.
<b>In socialism</b>... I run you out of business, but I still lose money and have to give it to your poor homeless ****.
Capitalism is a darwinian economy. Weed out the idiots (Well, if we didn't have laywers, it'd be this way), and the incompetents, and have the smart, creative, people rise to the top. They die, new people take over.
Socialism is a 'It's-A-Small-World' type economy. We can't be mean to you because you run an inferior hot dog stand. I've got to give MY MONEY that I, in theory, TOOK FROM YOU with the advent of my SUPERIOR PRODUCT and GIVE IT TO YOU?! <b>I OWE YOU NOTHING, AND YOU DESERVE NOTHING</b>
That's why I don't care about other people, and why I like our economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and have the smart, creative, people rise to the top. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hardly, you mearly get the more greedy, competative people rising to the top.
<!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Nov 5 2003, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Nov 5 2003, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>In socialism</b>... I run you out of business, but I still lose money and have to give it to your poor homeless ****.
Socialism is a 'It's-A-Small-World' type economy. We can't be mean to you because you run an inferior hot dog stand. I've got to give MY MONEY that I, in theory, TOOK FROM YOU with the advent of my SUPERIOR PRODUCT and GIVE IT TO YOU?! <b>I OWE YOU NOTHING, AND YOU DESERVE NOTHING</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In correct get your definition of socialism clear, in socialism there is no buisness that is owned, it belongs to the government and hands out the product according to need.
As we come into our own we begin to take seriously the ills of society. The best and most obvious way is to "share the love" so to speak...share the responsibility for ourselves, each other and society as a whole. I think the innocense of youth clouds reality. To assume that any man, let alone every man cares equally for society, for those around him or even himself is foolish. Its not only foolish to assume every person is going to work equally, share equally and live equally... its selfish and entirely unfair to pass your presumptions on to me or anyone else. How many men are willing to die for <i>your</i> benifit, or his countries benifit. How many men are willing to make <i>any</i> sacrafice for that matter...many people arent even willing to work.
The kind of equality that socialism looks to acheive could never be accomplished with the amount of freedom we enjoy right now. It would take a great deal of what so many neo-socialists despise...conformity. You had better be willing to be just like everyone around you. You cant be equal by thinking, looking and acting different from your neighbor. The state works for the people...the people do <i>not</i> work for the state. Not so under the flag of socialism. Nor would we have the system of balance democracy affords us.
You think democracy allows for corruption to thrive? Imagine a country where the state has full control instead of splitting the control with the people. Lets not pretend that corruption is just a side-effect of capitolism or democracy because it isnt. It a flaw of humanity, and it can affect any one of us. The same type of power hungry people would find thier way into high places and commit the same crimes, only socialism wont allow the people any recourse. Politicians will ride on the backs of the laborers, wich essentially anyone not associated with the government will become. Jobs will be assigned to people as the quotas need filled. Art would be allowed, maybe even embraced, but it would need to government regulated. Cant have everyone trying to become rock stars and painters...that would disrupt the spirit of equality and the nescesary jobs would never be filled if everyone spent thier time studying piano.
The human speceis would need to see an immense evolution of humanity, if every person is to embrace the utopian level of equality that communism wants to acheive. 46 + 2. We need evolution before revolution would do us any good. Lets pretend for a moment we do live in a socialist society. Personally, I am not about to do <i>any</i> job I dont want to. I want to be a game designer, and I am working towards that goal. What benifit does a game designer serve in that situation? Probably none...but hey, theyre short on janitors..so do I go to jail for refusing to clean toilets for a living? What would possibly make a person want to work if they cant better themselves? To benifit you and him and a bunch of other people I dont give a **** about. Or wait...all the sudden I do care? because thats the only way socialism can work? But why do me and millions of others still not give a ****? The government takes care of me, why bust my **** for nothing. Now it takes twice as long for anything to get done and the results are half as good.
On a seperate note. Dont just do your research to support your own beleifs. Dont follow an agenda. Research your topics like your trying to disprove what you beleive. You will either realize youve been misled, or reiforce your convictions. If nothing else, youll at least see another point of veiw. But dont just play your way right into someone elses bias agenda. If you only read what "they" say to read, and ignore what "they" tell you to ignore, you'd be seriously stupid to think what youve learned is the whole truth. Things are never clear cut black and white. Rarely is one side "wrong" and the other "right" like either side would lead you to beleive. Theres a whole convoluted middle ground with a thousand shades of grey that needs to be filtered through if you want to extract any truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 5 2003, 04:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 5 2003, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 5 2003, 10:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 5 2003, 10:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By limiting it to "youth" you're simply implying that Socialism is a fad that you grow out of. Or a system only chosen by the immature. Which is ludicrous. You might as well ask why only the shallow are attracted to pure Capitalism, its a pejorative question in that context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is sort of faddish in America though, which is where Jammer gets his thought (apologies to euros if this was not common knowledge). The biggest single time when socialism and anti-capitalism was popular in the USA was in the 1960's. Those people that founded the hippy movements and such are also the <i>exact same</i> group of people that created the Yuppie - the money-grubbing, get-yours-before-someone-else- does, rather personally irritating capitalist rodents of the 80's and early 90's.
Political loyalties (and this is my opinion based on my 30 years of observation, and not necessarily scientific) go hand in hand with the aging process. To be youthful is to (rather naturally) be very idyllic and naive. It is to want the best for everyone, and think that there is some magic bullet that will make the world a better place. As you grow older you find that the world isn't a utopia and probably would be hard-pressed to become one, and you become a bit more realistic (some might say pessimistic) about how life works, and you start gravitating more towards a reasonable status quo. As you get very old (and you can probably verify this with old people you know), you tend to get even more conservative and less able to believe in utopian dreams - you've seen 70 years of reality and you're pretty sure such things are nonsense.
This does not apply to everyone (although you are not as unique as you think you are, whoever you are reading this - stop being such a narcissist, it's the first step to adulthood) - but it is a good rule of thumb. And I think it answers Jammer's question: the youth like radical systems because they have not yet learned that they do not work very well. And being humans, more often than not they simply get bored of that radical behavior before they even figure out that it won't work. Plenty of history to support this, but let's just call it my opinion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting, but personally I've done the reverse, starting out as a market economy capitalist, then as I matured, I've started leaning towards centrist democracy and social democracy. I was a product of Thatcherism, and I'm sorry, I'm better now.
It may be the case that 30 years of observation in the US has led you to believe that socialism is youth-faddy, but I guess thats just in the US. In the 15 odd years I've been really socially aware, I've not seen ANYONE I've known follow the path from socialism to capitalism.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the 15 odd years I've been really socially aware, I've not seen ANYONE I've known follow the path from socialism to capitalism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch.
The Soviet records were kept secret from the world; why would they keep it secret if it was a lie? The Nazis, on the other hand, put out those "tens of millions" figures to try and gather support for their "liberation" of the USSR territories.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The biggest single time when socialism and anti-capitalism was popular in the USA was in the 1960's. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite. In the early 1900's, the Socialist Party got one million votes for the presidency. The party was one of the few Social-Democratic parties not to support WWI, but the Russian Revolution gave the impetus for a split following WWI between the conservative socialists and the Communists, who founded their own party.
The Communist Party of the USA subordinated itself to the Comintern, like all the Communist Parties of the world. Thus, when Stalin assumed leadership of the Comintern, the party became an instrument of the Russian bureaucracy and no longer a revolutionary party of the working class.
Nevertheless, the great depression spurred widespread dissatisfaction with capitalism. CPUSA membership was up to 30,000 during the Depression. The CPUSA also gathered much support from african-americans with its message of racial equality. The CPUSA had huge support outside of its actual membership; and even if under Stalin's leadership it wasn't Communist, Paul Robeson described it well as fighting against racism and for democracy in a time of great social injustice.
The US government through men like McCarthy worked hard to crush the CPUSA, and succeeded in breaking its power without actually destroying the Party. These days it is a Stalinist and reformist party with a membership of about 2,000. It supports voting for the Democrats, and is somewhat of an unofficial advisor to them.
The Socialist Workers Party, which started off as a Trotskyist alternative to the CPUSA, once stayed true to Marxism--but it has undergone its own degeneration into revisionism and Castro-worship. Nevertheless, that story takes us into the 1960's so I won't go on.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 6 2003, 02:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 6 2003, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the 15 odd years I've been really socially aware, I've not seen ANYONE I've known follow the path from socialism to capitalism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I WISH I was only 20. Time for my bath. Nurse, take me away.
The 60s was a different time, whilst the image of beatniks and hippies has been popularised, Britain was a socialist state (Conservatism actually conserving in those days) and if everyone had been staring at daisies and dancing in bare feet, we'd have ground to a halt. People were working, voting and getting on with being productive little socialist adults. It was only when people left home that some people decided to drop out. The people that did drop out had little stake in the consumerist boom of the 80s. Those were the productive little socialsts again. They were socially aware dults though. They're now productive little socialists again. It was part of an overall sea change in British politics at the time.
I guess your argument would hinge on what you'd term as "youth".
So, essentially, you should redefine the question as : Why Is Youth Perceived As Being Attracted To Socialism In The US, Today? (caps was not my idea)
It is true that a lot of people are attracted to <b>the Left</b> because they feel a need to rebel against the authority which is often painted as evil, etc, by punk bands and whatnot. When these kids who think they can do something (but actually don't know a thing about what they are talking about) come out into the political world, a lot of parties are vying for their attention. Usually the Democratic party will snag most of them, being the largest party on the left. These kids will buy into the Democratic pary's hackneyed populist themes that it betrays because they want some kind of feel of being involved with a 'movement.'
So that's a description of MANY or MOST liberal kiddies.
I would venture to say that those who subscribe to farther-left views like socialism or communism are more learned than the above kiddies. Why? Socialism and communism are too radical for their inexperienced tastes. They will be exposed to it and reject it because people on the right make arguments that sound convincing. So you will have liberal kids who march in all these protests but then virulently disparage social-/communism. However liberal kids who ACTUALLY KNOW what they are talking about and read up on subjects are more likely to join socialist and communist parties because they are the true left parties. The slightly-left-of-center parties are so weak, flaccid, hypocritical, and mutinous to leftist ideals that learned kids will realize that you either join a real leftist ideal or don't join anything at all. Such was my case - I decided that if I was going to be a leftist, I might as well not be a **** and go all out. (This was one of the reasons I started identifying myself as a communist, I already had leftist ideals beforehand)
Oh. Jammer: I think you have a mistaken perception of just how much socialism/communism is a "fad." I am the only communist in my <b>entire school.</b> I have some leftist friends but they're not as far as I am. It's not a fad. I get made fun of for being a communist for chrissakes :x Political persecution at its worst!!!11
[note: when I say I am a "communist" don't take it completely literally. I'm a "stephenchennist." I dont think anyone in the world can say that they adhere 100% to any political ideal, and I just call myself "communist" because it rolls off the tongue easily.]
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 6 2003, 02:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 6 2003, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the 15 odd years I've been really socially aware, I've not seen ANYONE I've known follow the path from socialism to capitalism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I had seen this as moot, because of the clear American bias.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 6 2003, 07:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 6 2003, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 6 2003, 05:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the 15 odd years I've been really socially aware, I've not seen ANYONE I've known follow the path from socialism to capitalism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't forget, in Britiain the Labour Party was Socialist (the party of Labour obviously), so us Brits (well me at least) don't share the same sort of close mental links between Communism and Socialism.
Fortunately (in my opinion) Margaret Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions and in the end Labour has had to go more towards the centre (if not all the way part it to be centre-right) to be elected.
Also just to point out to people in Britain, this is certainly not an American only thing.
Need I remind you of this (the Mayday Riots of 2000)?
Comments
It's because it creates a state in which very few people suffer. Yes, it might truncate some free will but it creates a safe state. My examples would be more "socialistic" countries like Finland, Sweden and other such countries. Ok, so it has a high-tax rate but then you don't have to shell out money for insurance and such.
Of course, that is to say that is not my 100% ideal government. I would prefer a Socialist Republic, because it would allow for something similar to communism/socialism type governments while also taking into effect the base of human nature. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someday you'll learn that other people don't care about you, so you will never ever care about them <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Until then, have fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's because it creates a state in which very few people suffer. Yes, it might truncate some free will but it creates a safe state. My examples would be more "socialistic" countries like Finland, Sweden and other such countries. Ok, so it has a high-tax rate but then you don't have to shell out money for insurance and such.
Of course, that is to say that is not my 100% ideal government. I would prefer a Socialist Republic, because it would allow for something similar to communism/socialism type governments while also taking into effect the base of human nature. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someday you'll learn that other people don't care about you, so you will never ever care about them <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Until then, have fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i got my numbers from the soviet records that have been opened.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you're going to trust *THAT*?! Ahahahaahah.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Eventually they start making websites about how american news if full of nothing but lies and propoganda to fill your brain with flag-waving happy days.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To an extent, yes, but this is why I hate talking about this to people: They don't have any idea about what the term 'relative' means.
All news is going to have a bias. It's a fact. It's written by humans. Bias is just part of our nature. We have a preference for our own race over others. We have a preference for our own species over others. We have a preference for our own views over others. It's a fact. The only non-biased news you'll get is if it was documented by robots who intervied EVERY party involved, every single person, and complied them down. That will not happen.
American news has a bias? Sure. But it's NOT full of propoganda telling us that America is the true guide in the world. That specific role is saved for two people: George Bush and Donald Rumsfield. In fact, show me a single news program that says that. News reports on facts, not opinions. You'll never hear an anchor saying 'Well I think 'blah blah' about this issue, Tom'. Never. And if you have, chances are they weren't on next week, or ever again.
Reported in the news: Iraqis down a chinook with stingers, killing 15 soldiers. If it was full of propoganda, why on EARTH would they be telling us that? It's our wonderfully non-elected leader telling us that crap.
Learn to seperate politics from news. JUst because Dubaya appeared on ABC news doesn't mean jack.
I believe that youth are attracted to more extreme elements of society because they don't have the same social bonds that older people do. I say more extreme elements because it's not just socialism that they're attracted to.
High school and college students don't have the same responsibilities. They don't have permanent jobs, children, or bills. Many are supported by their parents. The lack of ties to the community is what makes ideas and positions farther from the mainstream more attractive. College students don't backpack around Europe after they get a 9-5 and a mortgage and a dog and their 2.3 kids and car payments.
It can also be attributed to knowledge. When you're 15, 16, 17, you know everything. It's not that you think you know, you <i>do.</i> Then you hit the real world and it slowly dawns on you that you know nothing. The world isn't a simple place and there's a wealth of knowledge that you don't have. Things like economics, political and social philosophy and writing. Things get complex and simple ideas like <i>OMG! Teh guvmint suxxorz!</i> don't cut it anymore.
The concept of socialism appeals to youth because they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. They don't have money or a house or car payments. They don't have a stake in the current system. Then those ideals fade when they realize that they can either hold on to their ideals or they can be successful. The vast majority of any counter-culture comes from mainstream middle-class society and the members of that counter-culture have no problems melding right back into middle-class society when the counter-culture falls apart or they get to be 25-27.
By limiting it to "youth" you're simply implying that Socialism is a fad that you grow out of. Or a system only chosen by the immature. Which is ludicrous. You might as well ask why only the shallow are attracted to pure Capitalism, its a pejorative question in that context.
I see we haven't got past one of my favoutrite sayings in my absence: Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're wrong.
Socialism has (in Europe, at least) a broad definition. All (democratic) socialist parties are in favour of artificially adjusting the wealth of their citizens. This means progressive tax rates ( the more you make, the more you pay over marginally more income). This means a wellfare state, giving subsidies to people without jobs etcetera. It does not mean, however, that they want everyone to be exactly equal in wealth. They strife to give everyone the same chances in life, and therefor sponsor education. These parties are not undemocratic (not even in favour of a different democratic order), and do not want to limit civil rights.
totally offtopic, however. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think thats OT at all.
The British Labour Party (before Tony 'Tory' Blair introduced the mysterious "Third Way" that was basically conservatism with a new name) always supported these ideals, and this was the sort of socialism I was talking about when I made my post - it would appear thought that across the pond socialism and communism are almost interchangeable words.
I would support the Labour Party, if they weren't poo <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->, I would go on but I don't want to drag this topic towards British politcal discussions.
As for all this pro-Communist stuff being thrown around - its like reading <i>Animal Farm</i> all over again.
Not to mention, it would be Big Brother caring.
Killing 100 Million people tends to thin the 'bad crowd' and keep those left in line. :-/
Thats OT. This thread isn't about "Is socialism good?" Its "Why does youth continue to cling to it?"
And Anti-Bomb, thanks for your COMPLETELY WORTHLESS PERSONAL ATTACK OF A POST.
Did you read ANYTHING on the site? I explain clearly why I have it. Also, I don't hate the band, I DISAGREE with them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Explain your page for song dissection, you are attacking them because of their lyrics.
You should really consider the fact that,
It's a damn song not an essay, speech, or an article.
You take things way too seriously, lighten up.
On another note, if that youth researched about it, read the manifesto, and agrees with it because they believe in it then I see no problem. I never knew Anti-Flag was socialist, based on their lyrics they just have humanitarian beliefs.
It is usually the modern communists who hate our government the most.
<b>Teenage Communist Logic:</b>
<i>
corporations are evil
coroporations' money influences government power
government power is evil</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You clearly have 'Teenage Communism' (whatever the hell that means) confused with anarchy.
It is sort of faddish in America though, which is where Jammer gets his thought (apologies to euros if this was not common knowledge). The biggest single time when socialism and anti-capitalism was popular in the USA was in the 1960's. Those people that founded the hippy movements and such are also the <i>exact same</i> group of people that created the Yuppie - the money-grubbing, get-yours-before-someone-else- does, rather personally irritating capitalist rodents of the 80's and early 90's.
Political loyalties (and this is my opinion based on my 30 years of observation, and not necessarily scientific) go hand in hand with the aging process. To be youthful is to (rather naturally) be very idyllic and naive. It is to want the best for everyone, and think that there is some magic bullet that will make the world a better place. As you grow older you find that the world isn't a utopia and probably would be hard-pressed to become one, and you become a bit more realistic (some might say pessimistic) about how life works, and you start gravitating more towards a reasonable status quo. As you get very old (and you can probably verify this with old people you know), you tend to get even more conservative and less able to believe in utopian dreams - you've seen 70 years of reality and you're pretty sure such things are nonsense.
This does not apply to everyone (although you are not as unique as you think you are, whoever you are reading this - stop being such a narcissist, it's the first step to adulthood) - but it is a good rule of thumb. And I think it answers Jammer's question: the youth like radical systems because they have not yet learned that they do not work very well. And being humans, more often than not they simply get bored of that radical behavior before they even figure out that it won't work. Plenty of history to support this, but let's just call it my opinion.
are you calling me his me-tooer sidekick?
and Zig i'm sorry if i misinterpreted what you wrote, but u should have written more, i bet i'm not the only one who wasn't clear on it. whatever im sorry if i got u angry man. peace. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
my point was... kids don't have to make money.
thus, they can exist peacefully in a world without that necessity...
until they get booted out of the house.
basically what i was trying to get at before i got drowned in dogma.
It is very easy to formulate views without consideration of the impact on society or even yourself. The more extreme the view, the more unrealistic its implementation.
And why do us old folks start to sway back? Well, our views get tempered by experience and reality. We don't necessarily shift from one side to the other, but our views become less extreme and more geared towards something that is within the realm of possibility.
Not sure where I first saw it, but I read something that went a bit like this....
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and her father was a rather staunch Republican.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to programs like welfare. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless because of all the studying.
She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of all her studying.
He then asked how her friend Mary, who was attending the same college, was doing.
She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, was very popular on campus, and was at parties all the time. She often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
He then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
The daughter fired back and said, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and my friend has done nothing."
The father smiled and said: "Welcome to the Republican Party".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anti-bomb: there is a difference between "Disagree" and "Attack". Attacks are personal agendas motivated by differences in opinion. Disagreements are purely issues. You're attacking me for an opinion. Good Job.
Back on topic...
I find it very interesting that arguably the most self-indulged group of America, youth, are in favor of a system which demands focus on others. Heh.
Its also hilarious that so many punk rock bands, a movment founded on being an individual and non-conformity, support a system in which the indivdual is a threat to the state. :-)
It is usually the modern communists who hate our government the most.
<b>Teenage Communist Logic:</b>
<i>
corporations are evil
coroporations' money influences government power
government power is evil</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You clearly have 'Teenage Communism' (whatever the hell that means) confused with anarchy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, teenagers confuse communism with anarchy. By the time they do get it right they are so full of love for something so anti-social to common perception that they will believe any bull crap that they are told by bad punk bands.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not attacking you for having an opinion I just find it stupid to dedicate a whole entire website to criticizing a band. You want a blog? Fine, but to create it for the sole reason of criticizing a band's beliefs is foolish. I agree with freedom and speech and all and I respect your opinion but it is based on something very loose. Anti-Flag even says on it's gossip section that alot of the songs you shouldn't take seriously. That's the truth a lot of those lyrics that demonstrate their political beliefs are written to fit the chords and rifs of the music.
Not to mention, it would be Big Brother caring. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever hear the term 'Dog-eat-dog world'?
Let's say you're running a hot dog plant. You sell plain old hot dogs. Mustard, ketchup, bread, and a dog.
I open a chicago-style hot dog plant across the street. Relish, tomatos, cucumbers, garlic salt, all that good stuff.
<b>In capitalism</b>... people would rather buy my hot dogs, and I run you out of business. Good riddance, I think, you were just a risk that I'd lose money.
<b>In socialism</b>... I run you out of business, but I still lose money and have to give it to your poor homeless ****.
Capitalism is a darwinian economy. Weed out the idiots (Well, if we didn't have laywers, it'd be this way), and the incompetents, and have the smart, creative, people rise to the top. They die, new people take over.
Socialism is a 'It's-A-Small-World' type economy. We can't be mean to you because you run an inferior hot dog stand. I've got to give MY MONEY that I, in theory, TOOK FROM YOU with the advent of my SUPERIOR PRODUCT and GIVE IT TO YOU?! <b>I OWE YOU NOTHING, AND YOU DESERVE NOTHING</b>
That's why I don't care about other people, and why I like our economy.
(BTW: By not caring, I mean in a business sense)
Hardly, you mearly get the more greedy, competative people rising to the top.
Socialism is a 'It's-A-Small-World' type economy. We can't be mean to you because you run an inferior hot dog stand. I've got to give MY MONEY that I, in theory, TOOK FROM YOU with the advent of my SUPERIOR PRODUCT and GIVE IT TO YOU?! <b>I OWE YOU NOTHING, AND YOU DESERVE NOTHING</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In correct get your definition of socialism clear, in socialism there is no buisness that is owned, it belongs to the government and hands out the product according to need.
The kind of equality that socialism looks to acheive could never be accomplished with the amount of freedom we enjoy right now. It would take a great deal of what so many neo-socialists despise...conformity. You had better be willing to be just like everyone around you. You cant be equal by thinking, looking and acting different from your neighbor. The state works for the people...the people do <i>not</i> work for the state. Not so under the flag of socialism. Nor would we have the system of balance democracy affords us.
You think democracy allows for corruption to thrive? Imagine a country where the state has full control instead of splitting the control with the people. Lets not pretend that corruption is just a side-effect of capitolism or democracy because it isnt. It a flaw of humanity, and it can affect any one of us. The same type of power hungry people would find thier way into high places and commit the same crimes, only socialism wont allow the people any recourse. Politicians will ride on the backs of the laborers, wich essentially anyone not associated with the government will become. Jobs will be assigned to people as the quotas need filled. Art would be allowed, maybe even embraced, but it would need to government regulated. Cant have everyone trying to become rock stars and painters...that would disrupt the spirit of equality and the nescesary jobs would never be filled if everyone spent thier time studying piano.
The human speceis would need to see an immense evolution of humanity, if every person is to embrace the utopian level of equality that communism wants to acheive. 46 + 2. We need evolution before revolution would do us any good. Lets pretend for a moment we do live in a socialist society. Personally, I am not about to do <i>any</i> job I dont want to. I want to be a game designer, and I am working towards that goal. What benifit does a game designer serve in that situation? Probably none...but hey, theyre short on janitors..so do I go to jail for refusing to clean toilets for a living? What would possibly make a person want to work if they cant better themselves? To benifit you and him and a bunch of other people I dont give a **** about. Or wait...all the sudden I do care? because thats the only way socialism can work? But why do me and millions of others still not give a ****? The government takes care of me, why bust my **** for nothing. Now it takes twice as long for anything to get done and the results are half as good.
It is sort of faddish in America though, which is where Jammer gets his thought (apologies to euros if this was not common knowledge). The biggest single time when socialism and anti-capitalism was popular in the USA was in the 1960's. Those people that founded the hippy movements and such are also the <i>exact same</i> group of people that created the Yuppie - the money-grubbing, get-yours-before-someone-else- does, rather personally irritating capitalist rodents of the 80's and early 90's.
Political loyalties (and this is my opinion based on my 30 years of observation, and not necessarily scientific) go hand in hand with the aging process. To be youthful is to (rather naturally) be very idyllic and naive. It is to want the best for everyone, and think that there is some magic bullet that will make the world a better place. As you grow older you find that the world isn't a utopia and probably would be hard-pressed to become one, and you become a bit more realistic (some might say pessimistic) about how life works, and you start gravitating more towards a reasonable status quo. As you get very old (and you can probably verify this with old people you know), you tend to get even more conservative and less able to believe in utopian dreams - you've seen 70 years of reality and you're pretty sure such things are nonsense.
This does not apply to everyone (although you are not as unique as you think you are, whoever you are reading this - stop being such a narcissist, it's the first step to adulthood) - but it is a good rule of thumb. And I think it answers Jammer's question: the youth like radical systems because they have not yet learned that they do not work very well. And being humans, more often than not they simply get bored of that radical behavior before they even figure out that it won't work. Plenty of history to support this, but let's just call it my opinion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting, but personally I've done the reverse, starting out as a market economy capitalist, then as I matured, I've started leaning towards centrist democracy and social democracy. I was a product of Thatcherism, and I'm sorry, I'm better now.
It may be the case that 30 years of observation in the US has led you to believe that socialism is youth-faddy, but I guess thats just in the US. In the 15 odd years I've been really socially aware, I've not seen ANYONE I've known follow the path from socialism to capitalism.
And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch.
The Soviet records were kept secret from the world; why would they keep it secret if it was a lie? The Nazis, on the other hand, put out those "tens of millions" figures to try and gather support for their "liberation" of the USSR territories.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The biggest single time when socialism and anti-capitalism was popular in the USA was in the 1960's. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite. In the early 1900's, the Socialist Party got one million votes for the presidency. The party was one of the few Social-Democratic parties not to support WWI, but the Russian Revolution gave the impetus for a split following WWI between the conservative socialists and the Communists, who founded their own party.
The Communist Party of the USA subordinated itself to the Comintern, like all the Communist Parties of the world. Thus, when Stalin assumed leadership of the Comintern, the party became an instrument of the Russian bureaucracy and no longer a revolutionary party of the working class.
Nevertheless, the great depression spurred widespread dissatisfaction with capitalism. CPUSA membership was up to 30,000 during the Depression. The CPUSA also gathered much support from african-americans with its message of racial equality. The CPUSA had huge support outside of its actual membership; and even if under Stalin's leadership it wasn't Communist, Paul Robeson described it well as fighting against racism and for democracy in a time of great social injustice.
The US government through men like McCarthy worked hard to crush the CPUSA, and succeeded in breaking its power without actually destroying the Party. These days it is a Stalinist and reformist party with a membership of about 2,000. It supports voting for the Democrats, and is somewhat of an unofficial advisor to them.
The Socialist Workers Party, which started off as a Trotskyist alternative to the CPUSA, once stayed true to Marxism--but it has undergone its own degeneration into revisionism and Castro-worship. Nevertheless, that story takes us into the 1960's so I won't go on.
And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I WISH I was only 20. Time for my bath. Nurse, take me away.
The 60s was a different time, whilst the image of beatniks and hippies has been popularised, Britain was a socialist state (Conservatism actually conserving in those days) and if everyone had been staring at daisies and dancing in bare feet, we'd have ground to a halt. People were working, voting and getting on with being productive little socialist adults.
It was only when people left home that some people decided to drop out. The people that did drop out had little stake in the consumerist boom of the 80s. Those were the productive little socialsts again. They were socially aware dults though. They're now productive little socialists again. It was part of an overall sea change in British politics at the time.
I guess your argument would hinge on what you'd term as "youth".
So, essentially, you should redefine the question as : Why Is Youth Perceived As Being Attracted To Socialism In The US, Today? (caps was not my idea)
My work here is done.
So that's a description of MANY or MOST liberal kiddies.
I would venture to say that those who subscribe to farther-left views like socialism or communism are more learned than the above kiddies. Why? Socialism and communism are too radical for their inexperienced tastes. They will be exposed to it and reject it because people on the right make arguments that sound convincing. So you will have liberal kids who march in all these protests but then virulently disparage social-/communism.
However liberal kids who ACTUALLY KNOW what they are talking about and read up on subjects are more likely to join socialist and communist parties because they are the true left parties. The slightly-left-of-center parties are so weak, flaccid, hypocritical, and mutinous to leftist ideals that learned kids will realize that you either join a real leftist ideal or don't join anything at all. Such was my case - I decided that if I was going to be a leftist, I might as well not be a **** and go all out. (This was one of the reasons I started identifying myself as a communist, I already had leftist ideals beforehand)
Oh. Jammer: I think you have a mistaken perception of just how much socialism/communism is a "fad." I am the only communist in my <b>entire school.</b> I have some leftist friends but they're not as far as I am. It's not a fad. I get made fun of for being a communist for chrissakes :x Political persecution at its worst!!!11
[note: when I say I am a "communist" don't take it completely literally. I'm a "stephenchennist." I dont think anyone in the world can say that they adhere 100% to any political ideal, and I just call myself "communist" because it rolls off the tongue easily.]
And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had seen this as moot, because of the clear American bias.
And you point out a small flaw in the topic - different cultures behave different ways. In your country (England, yes?), your experience is the reverse (albeit with less time invested - you have not crossed the demarcation line yet if you are only, say, 20 years old). Although I would point out that Britain has plenty of former hippies gone yuppie too, it was not exclusively American by any stretch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't forget, in Britiain the Labour Party was Socialist (the party of Labour obviously), so us Brits (well me at least) don't share the same sort of close mental links between Communism and Socialism.
Fortunately (in my opinion) Margaret Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions and in the end Labour has had to go more towards the centre (if not all the way part it to be centre-right) to be elected.
Also just to point out to people in Britain, this is certainly not an American only thing.
Need I remind you of this (the Mayday Riots of 2000)?
<img src='http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/740000/images/_740524_statue300.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<img src='http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/740000/images/_740524_churchill150.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
And to cap it off they defaced The Cenotaph (Britain's War Memorial to its dead)
<img src='http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/730000/images/_733104_cen300.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Am I saying that this was the work of Socliasts/Communists/whatever? No, I'm merely saying that this sort of thing is not just an American phenominon.